Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner (‘accused’) under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Shalinder Kaur, J., stated that mere assertions or absence of recovery from the accused might not suffice when the material on record prima facie disclosed a nexus with a narcotic network. The gravity of the offence, coupled with the organized nature of the criminal activity, justified a more cautious approach in the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
Therefore, the Court stated that the present case was not the fit case where the accused could be granted bail and accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
Background
On 15-11-2022, an information was received that the one ‘X’, a resident of Ambala, Haryana, was actively involved in trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and was in the habit of procuring heroin from a one ‘Y’. It was specifically informed that ‘X’, after having secured a substantial quantity of heroin from ‘Y’, would be present at a location between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm on the same day.
Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted, and a trap was laid near the location. At approximately 5:15 pm, one individual, later identified as ‘X’, was seen approaching, carrying a green and black coloured backpack. He was identified by the informer as the person in question. Upon being apprehended, ‘X’ was apprised of the secret information and was served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The searching of a bag led to the recovery of a transparent polythene packet containing 3kgs of heroin. Thereafter, accused’s involvement came to light pursuant to intercepted voice communications, which, significantly, pertain to July, September, and October 2022.
The accused’s counsel submitted that he was falsely implicated in the present case as no recovery of any contraband was ever affected from or at the instance of the accused. He only came to be involved in the present case when the investigation agency conducted a raid at the house of his brother.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that undoubtedly, the accused was arrested at the disclosure statement of the co-accused, who was the accused’s brother. However, after his arrest, the said co-accused had recovered 1 kg of heroin from an empty water tank at the accused’s shop. More so, based on the accused’s disclosure statement and his brother, the alleged main source of supply of heroin, was a Nigerian national, who was arrested and during the search of his house, 500 gm of heroin was recovered.
The Court observed that in pursuance of the accused’s disclosure statement, another co-accused, a receiver of heroin was arrested, and 360 gm of heroin was recovered from the dashboard of his car. Further, as per the transcripts of the intercepted calls on 10-9-2022 and 20-10-2022, the accused was found to be in touch with a Nigerian national, involved in conversation with respect to the alleged contraband. Moreover, on 7-11-2022, the accused was in touch with the other co-accused, through his mobile phone and the intercepted call displayed the alleged conversation with respect to the contraband.
Thus, the Court stated that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the accused prima facie seemed to be involved in organized narcotic network and had been frequently in touch with the main supplier of the contraband and with the receiver of the contraband. At his instance, two other co-accused persons were arrested from whose possession commercial quantity of heroin i.e. 500 gm and 360 gm respectively were recovered, coupled with the fact that the accused did not have clean antecedents and was involved in another criminal case. The Court stated that the accused was one of the links in the narcotic syndicate, involved in procurement and distribution of narcotics. The charge was framed under Section 29 of the NDPS Act vide the order dated 10-7-2024 and the trial was underway.
The Court stated that when an accused was alleged to be involved in a narcotic network, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act assumes heightened significance. The involvement in an organized network indicated a deeper and more structured participation in the commission of the offence, thereby raising serious concerns about the potential for reoffending, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses if released on bail. In such cases, the Court was required to apply the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: first, that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the offence, and second, that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The Court stated that mere assertions or absence of recovery from the accused might not suffice when the material on record prima facie disclosed a nexus with a narcotic network. The gravity of the offence, coupled with the organized nature of the criminal activity, justified a more cautious approach in the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
Therefore, the Court stated that the present case was not the fit case where the accused could be granted bail and accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.
[Praveen v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 4256 of 2024, decided on 21-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mohit Rana and Gulam Ali, Advocates
For the Respondent: Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with SI Vikas Kuhar, PS Special Cell.
